Jay's relationship glossary :)

[jay]

I've had several discussions lately with folks about relationship labels. For myself, I tend to view friendship and relationship as part of a continuous spectrum, with friendships simply being a kind of incomplete/damaged/otherwise-constrained relationship (if close) or else simply a non-hostile person (if not close). These are mine, for my own historical reasons, and I am not trying to persuade anyone else to use them. Only perhaps to better understand what I say, at times?

sweetie: someone with whom I have emotional closeness and affection, a loving relationship. And typically some degree of attachment, and/or ongoing communication with each other. It is regardless of whether there's been any physical play or intimacy in the relationship, of whatever sort. Someone I trust and can have fun with.

lover: is someone with whom I've been some form of physically intimate, ironically whether or not there's any ongoing emotional attachment.

partner = sweetie + lover, plus a deeper ongoing commitment or attachment.

friend: is generally someone with whom I've mutually agreed to not be hostile. Closer to me than an acquaintance, but the term doesn't carry any connotation of openness or safety or support. If someone says "let's just be friends", I hear "we'll agree to not be enemies in the future, but not necessarily anything more." Not a love-relationship, per se.

friend-with-benefits: = friend + lover, without ongoing attachment

ambigu-sweetie: from radven originally, for me this is vaguely friend+sweetie, but since those are along the same continuum, it refers to differing connections in different activities.

tocotox, quantum-relationship: these are placeholder names I use for relationships/friendships that don't easily fit in the above categories, or which may function as one thing in some ways and as a different one in others. Or may probabilistically jump between different energy/connection levels over time, in the latter case.

I last visited this topic about 16 months ago, in this thread.

Comments

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Your "chosen family" category doesn't exist for me, I think... it is hard to see what they would gain from me, or me from them, from being loving-but-nonsexual, or at least loving-but-nonromantic. It is also hard to imagine opening up and *trusting* someone to be as close as family, if they were rejecting me to that extent meanwhile?

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Sometimes people feel trusting/close without feeling sexually attracted. That's not the same as rejection.

I'm sexually attracted to a tiny proportion of people I know, even otherwise very sexy people, it's just how I'm wired. I can't explain it -- but it's not rejection.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

That's a useful data point, thanks. I'm likely wired differently, and given my own past-abused history, welcomed physical touch is one of the biggest ways I convince myself that I'm safe with that person. Which IMO predisposes me towards being emotionally close in relationships, but less so with friends.

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

Ditto.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Interesting... I would have guessed differently, given your own (locked) post this past weekend?

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

Well, my "tiny proportion" might not be as tiny as mactavish's. But I certainly do feel trusting/close without feeling sexually attracted (even in a limited sense), even with otherwise very sexy people, quite frequently.

[satyrlovesong.livejournal.com]

Ayep. Often, and in spades.

A common paraphrased description is "What do you call people that you love without having sex with? Friends."

Then, I define love as valuing their happiness and safety more than my own - so I love a LOT of people. That doesn't mean I want to cuddle up to most of them - it just means that I value them highly.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

When I hear "I want to be your friend," conversely, to me it parses as "I don't love you, don't expect to, and you aren't going to be siginificant to me -- but we can hang out sometimes."

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Ah. Well, that explains your reaction when I told you, about 18 months ago, that I considered us to be *friends*. For me, friendship is more what the others are describing. As a friend, I might or might not feel *love* toward you, but I certainly care about you and you could be very significant to me.

Would it help if you were to make this a three-dimensional map, like those political affiliation things that we've done in the past? It feels to me like you occupy a space somewhere in amongst friend and chosen family. For you, that doesn't seem to make sense (as here) unless there's a sexual or romantic component. While "chosen family" for me CAN have sexual or romantic components, apparently it doesn't HAVE to.

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I think that this difference actually is related somehow to the fast-definitive vs. slower-evolving difference in relationship parsing. I'm guessing that emotional attachment and sexual attraction are fairly separate or decoupled for you? For me, they are closely linked... simply being emotionally attached to someone, for me, puts them also on my radar screen in other ways. Even if their bod doesn't itself necessarily do much for me, per se.

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

Er, you/they would gain a loving relationship? I suspect that relationships I think of as chosen family, you would call "sweeties"... but I am a bit confused. How do you define "romantic"?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

It's pretty straightforward for me. If I can ask, "do I love this person? Do they love me?" and ask "are we in some kind of ongoing communication and contact?" and answer "Yes" to both, then by my definitions I'm in a capital-R relationship with that person, probably as a sweetie, maybe a partner if there's also chemistry. And my willingness to support that person and be there for that person and be loving and affectionate all follow from those fundamentals, for me.

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

So loving-but-nonromantic is an oxymoron for you, and you're in a Relationship with your kids?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(grin) yes (first), and no (second). Context is adult relationships, not blood relatives... besides, the first question requires consensuality.

[yami-mcmoots.livejournal.com]

Huh. That... more or less makes sense. It maps really poorly to my experience, but it makes sense.

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I find it very confusing. But that does seem accurate. The result is that I, as someone who is one of Jay's non-existent chosen-family (*wry smile*), feel that he's usually pushing to have our relationship be something that it isn't (for me). Unfortunately, has led to me pushing back, defining MY relationship space, and me telling him that we're not in the very relationship that he needs us to be in to feel safe. We end up bouncing off each other like a tied pair of rubber bouncy balls. I get frustrated because I don't want to cut the connection, but we can't seem to find a comfortable place to be. It seems to work much better if I just let him call me "sweetie," and I hear it as "chosen family." I think we mean more the same thing by that than I'd originally thought.

[wordweaverlynn.livejournal.com]

This is a great conversation, and I am glad you brought it up. I'm working on my own relationship glossary.

I'm touch-focused in many ways, but I can also make very strong connections purely through books, music, conversation. Moreover, I have somewhat unusual sexual tastes and emotional history; finding someone whose desires and emotions are compatible with mine is a rare event. So my decision not to sleep with someone is in no way a rejection of them for me. Also, although I hug people, I rarely cuddle with anyone who isn't already an intimate.

Being sexually touched by strangers or those I don't trust is a huge trigger for me. But it isn't the only reason I keep my hands to myself. Incompatibility of desires or relationship styles, existing relationship commitments, lack of time, lack of emotional energy -- they all are factors.


A question for you: all the people you don't become sexually involved with -- do you feel you are rejecting them?

[dawnd.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... you mean like me?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

(grin) if I have anything in the chosen-family category, you and akienm and your household would be the closest approximation I can imagine...